Iain Gillies at The Gisborne Herald argues against a republic in today's edition, making not of the Republican Movement's President of New Zealand website. The questions asked deserve a response - and who better to give it than the Republican Movement:

Dear Sir,

Your article (4 August) raises a number of questions about republicanism in New Zealand which deserve answers. The Head of State (Referenda) Bill, a members Bill currently in the ballot, proposes two republican models: a head of State elected by three-quarters of parliament and a head of State elected directly. These models would make New Zealand a Parliamentary republic, along the lines of Ireland, Finland or Iceland. Both models would be put to a referendum alongside the status quo, and the head of State would have the same powers as the Governor-General, being largely ceremonial. There would still be a Prime Minister for the day-to-day running of government. Unlike the status quo, the Prime Minister would lose the power to choose whoever they wanted to be Governor-General.

You argue that a New Zealand head of State would be more expensive than the monarchy. Yet the Governor-General and their advisers cost the taxpayer $11m per year. The President of Ireland – a country of similar size to New Zealand – costs NZ$7m per year. Our competition to find New Zealand's first president shows that there are numerous New Zealanders better able to represent our country and its unique national identity – and the people of New Zealand are more than capable of choosing someone. This emphasises power comes from the people, not an unelected absentee head of State.

Regards,

Lewis Holden
Chair, Republican Movement